War is good for business. Constant fear to control society. If you 'oppose' something, and secretly fund it while it grows a greater threat, you fool everybody. By being the US bully that peace activists despise, real agenda is hidden.

nomad

03-21-2005, 04:41 PM

Thumper read this and it will all make sense

to you.

http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/multi/illumin.html

55132

03-21-2005, 08:30 PM

Thumper wrote:
well.? :-)

the powers that be use the heglian principle of thesis,antitheis and synthesis in other words the work on all corners of the con and manipulate evryone to their benefit (money)

there is a lot of documetation on this in this site.

nohope187

03-21-2005, 08:30 PM

The cold war was a staged act agreed upon by globalists. This should be obvious to everyone here. If the cold war was real, all Amerikans should be shitting themselves right now over Red China who currently has Most Favoured Nation status. :-P

psholtz

03-21-2005, 09:24 PM

It's called the Hegelian Dialectic..

Thumper

03-21-2005, 10:37 PM

i guess the Hegelian Dialectic is neccessary with such a "freedom loving" culture in the West.

psholtz

03-22-2005, 01:09 AM

Thumper wrote:
i guess the Hegelian Dialectic is neccessary with such a "freedom loving" culture in the West.
No, it's unnecessary and completely antithetical to Western values. The Hegelian dialectic is the basis of all Communist thought..

The poster who started this thread talks about how the US "fought" the USSR in the Cold War, but remember that before 1945, the US and USSR were actually pretty darn good buddies (much to the chagrin of true lovers of liberty), even to the point where Harry Dexter White (U.S. Treasury under FDR) was smuggling U.S. Treasury plates into the USSR so that the Soviets could counterfeit U.S. dollars..

Of course, some would call that Communist treason, emanating from the FDR White House.......

Also, the U.S. today (and for a long time, certainly most of the Cold War) has been -- strictly speaking -- a Communist Nation. We implement all 10 planks of Marx' Communist Manifesto. By definition, that would make the U.S. a Communist nation...

Not to mention, that as soon as the Bolshevik Revolution was a consolidated fact who was in there to "help electrify" all of Boshevik Russia and earn a massive fortune?

General Electric.

I've posted enough on this topic, as I think everyone who's commented on this thread know, so I'll refrain from posting more here. Keep checking the <a href="http://www.clubconspiracy.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=ASC&topic_id=545&forum=17">"usual" thread</a> for more Communist info.
Also check out my new thread on <a href"http://www.clubconspiracy.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1052&forum=2&post_id=8404">Marxist Cultural Subversion According to Gramsci</a>.

The understanding of Antonio Gramsci and his strategy of conquest by means of infiltration and subversion of culture is of paramount importance if we ever are to mount an effective counter-strike against Satanic Communism.

Alex Jones on that subject.
http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~falluga/ML.wmv

55132

03-23-2005, 05:58 AM

firsthand aacount on how the intl. communisum works

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=110

55132

Saturnino

03-23-2005, 05:24 PM

It has to do with the Hegelian dialectic process of thesis vs antithesis. You create different extreme points so you can have a synthesis in the future. In this case, the Illuminati wanted some kind of fascism, a strong state under their hands, like communism, with private propriety (for them, of course)...something like China is today.

So they funded communism and attacked it at the same time, in order to militarize the West, create the military-industrial complex, create a police state, etc...very useful indeed. When the need was gone, they just said that communism doesn`t exist anymore. ..he he he...at the same time, they infiltrated all kinds of communist ideas of State control in the American society, especially in the universities, all funded by the big tax-free foundations.

It is this mix they want, the worst of two worlds. Communism gives them the power and the State, capitalism gives them the money.

nohope187

03-23-2005, 05:38 PM

Saturnino wrote:
It is this mix they want, the worst of two worlds. Communism gives them the power and the State, capitalism gives them the money.
And the sheeple eat it up with a spoon. :-P

nomad

03-23-2005, 06:31 PM

nohope187 wrote:

Saturnino wrote:
It is this mix they want, the worst of two worlds. Communism gives them the power and the State, capitalism gives them the money.
And the sheeple eat it up with a spoon. :-P

Yup and the sheeple eat it up ... just

like they are eating up the setup of

the Bush brothers coming in as HEROS to

save Terri Schiavo.

Thumper

03-24-2005, 10:04 PM

55132 wrote:
firsthand aacount on how the intl. communisum works

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=110

55132why did he defect anyway? his conscience?

this

03-25-2005, 05:31 PM

re: 55132's link to Benjamin Freedman's speech in 1961

It seems he defected because he was disgusted and knew firsthand how diabolical the schemes were. Also by blaming a group of which he was a member he was able to be taken seriously without going further perhaps, by blaming the Rockefellers and Standard Oil. He also wanted to 'out' the majority of Jewish schemers who he felt were not ethnic Jews like himself but Khazars.

In 1961 the Rockefellers had a higher profile than today, and he likely had to weigh what he said carefully by showing as much as he possibly could. He was very concerned about a nuclear WWIII and the Cuban missile crisis shows he was right.

The fact that Kruschev was photographed as being happy to see Rockefeller makes one wonder what indeed was/is going on. How nuts are the Rockefellers, and how much control do they have over the international war machine?

Draken

03-27-2005, 04:19 AM

This is a part of a longer analysis titled <a href="http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/threats.html">ANALYSIS OF STRATEGIC THREATS IN THE CURRENT DECADE (2000-2010) By Joel M. Skousen</a>. I was recommended by THIS to read the whole thing and I encourage everyone to do the same. As a teaser I post this excerpt for all those who wonder why the global elite would want to covertly support Communism, while at the same time overtly oppose it.

WESTERN GLOBALISTS: THE NEW WORLD ORDER

INTRODUCTION

The movement to establish a global system of control began somewhere back in the murky past of the Illuminati (1776) and has since morphed, grown and expanded till now there are numerous shadowy variants and groups that make it almost impossible to pin down exactly who is running things and where the real motive and power is coming from. Fortunately, it is not necessary to know all of the secrets underlying this movement. It is sufficient to establish that all of the existing globalist organizations--the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Aspen Institute, Bilderburgers, Royal Institute for International Affairs, Committee of 300, Club of Rome, etc., aspire to global control and eliminate national sovereignty. Numerous quotations of their own leaders and members state just that. That they have more sinister long-term motives and intentions concerning the eventual use of global control is not so clear or easy to prove. However, the track record of global intervention does not portend an optimistic outcome.

Those who watch the way global insiders operate and cover up illegal operations of influence and control almost always come away convinced that there is some form of conspiracy involved. This conclusion is really not too difficult to establish if one has access to the details of each case. Look at the specific evidence pointing to government misdeeds and the subsequent cover-ups of economic manipulation, assassinations, terrorist attacks on airlines, illegal weapons trade, government coups, and high level corruption. In each of these cases, there is a common thread: the active involvement of a vast array of high officials, government agencies, the media, law officers, lawyers, judges, and sometimes international corporations and organized crime--coordinated and inter-connected enough to hide the truth, obstruct justice and cover for high level leaders. Thatís what a conspiracy is: a coordination between normally separable government officials who have no legal right or lawful need to collude in their official capacities. Sadly, it happens all the time. The excuse given, when discovered, that these unfortunate incidents are merely the workings of the proverbial "rogue agent" is rarely true. Upon close examination, the trail leads always to higher levels where the cover-up and obstruction gets serious. For further evidence, read the accounts of the many government whistle blowers out of the military, CIA, DEA, or FBI, found in Rodney Stichís Defrauding America (order line: 1-800-247-7389).

THE NEW WORLD ORDER (NWO) AS A PREDATOR MOVEMENT

NWO globalists take great care to mask their intentions by appealing to "democracy" and making constant references to "human rights" and the support of international law. But a close look at their justification for intervention in Iraq, the Balkans and Indonesia clearly indicates that tyranny and ethnic cleansing was fostered, then overlooked, or even partially falsified until it festered enough to justify intervention and subsequent control. While most people in the Western world do not view the NWO as a predator movement, the Eastern world certainly is beginning to see it in that light. I will make the case that the changing role of NATO and the UN from a defensive organization to an aggressor in Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, and Africa was and still is intentional, meant to help stir up hatred and discontent sufficient to justify an eventual Russian and Chinese strike on the West as previously discussed.

WHY?

The big question is always, why would those who strive for global power and financial control want to engender a nuclear war that would destroy the whole world? In the first place, it is not true that the whole world would be destroyed. Millions would die, and over half the people in any country under attack would get very ill, but probably no more than 20% of the populace of any nation subjected to a military facilities first strike would die. Most countries will not be targeted. Russia, who is planning this war, is sensible enough to be prepared to shelter many of its citizens from nuclear effects. Among Western nations, however, only Switzerland has a comprehensive fallout shelter program for its citizens. A few thousand savvy conservatives in America also have provided shelter systems for their families. Nuclear war is quite survivable, outside of the actual blast zones, with adequate preparations in place.

The core of the question about the prime motive remains: why destroy the tremendous prosperity that even these conspirators for global power enjoy? Most people do not sufficiently understand real evil. To them, this scenario is simply unimaginable. But the fact remains, powerful men in government and business have knowingly colluded to finance war and destruction. It has happened before and it will happen again. For example, globalists bankers, corporation heads and government officials colluded prior to WWII to finance Hitler and Stalin, and undermine capitalist nations in order to pave the way for Socialism and war. A close look at the conduct of the war relative to aid and concessions to Russia paint a picture of Western complicity to play the Hegelian game, building up an enemy in order to produce a controlled response. The West actively colluded in the betrayal of captive nations and paved the way for Soviet military dominance and conquest around the world.

None of the World Wars in this century were accidents, in my opinion. Conflict was created with the long-term goal to facilitate a consolidation of world power in the hands of the NWO elite. It is true that many of the Wall Street bankers who financed Hitler and the Alfried Krupp-owned German war industries saw those investments destroyed, but they were always taken care of after the war and allowed to make even greater millions in the reconstruction process. That was much of the motive behind the Marshal Plan. German armorer Alfried Krupp, who was convicted at the Nuremberg trials for using slave labor, was pardoned by John J. McCloy, US Military Governor and High Commissioner in Germany. Mcloy was also the globalist insider who eventually became head of the CFR. Clearly there was a system of immunity and protection established for insider participants so that war could be used as an instrument of change, without destroying its own leaders and the power behind them. In each case, there was a common motive--to use the horrors of war to accelerate the demand for international institutions of control that would not otherwise be acceptable to free men and women.

To fully understand the globalist mode of operation, we must address one of the great inconsistencies in US foreign policy: Why have US leaders (especially from Truman onward) actively undermined other pro-Western governments and secretly armed and supported Communist guerrilla operations in such countries as China, Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Laos, and Cambodia? Why do globalists attack some Communist regimes and support others? The main reason is that globalists are dedicated socialists, in terms of commitment to control, but want the benefits of a partially free market to finance that control system. They have a code name for this dualism--the Third Way--which is a euphemism for the old Fabian socialism (private ownership but government regulation and control). Naturally, globalists like the trappings of wealth that the capitalist component of a controlled economy provides.

Communism has been a useful tool for the globalists to subvert liberty in the world. Communism takes the rap, while the globalists steadily undermine world independence and national sovereignty. The NWO boys are experts in the use of Hegelian tactics of creating enemies that produce a desired response. For example, Communism is often characterized by certain excesses in tyranny that engender a call for global intervention--very convenient. The Communists do the dirty work and the globalists step in to control the final outcome. Often, the setup is not easy to control. When a Communist tyrant becomes unpredictable or messy the US State Department has to go in and undermine their own tyrant and replace him with another. Ultimately, US global leaders have to undermine any strongman, such as Milosovic in Serbia who refuses to become subservient to NWO control. Globalists have a nasty record of not being able to find moderate tyrants, especially in Africa and the Middle East.

The globalistsí first attempt to use war to create global government was WWI and the subsequent League of Nations. It ended in failure--unless we take into account the one-sided Versailles Treaty of WWI which became a catalyst for German hatred of the West, helping to foment the Second World War. WWII, in turn, successfully delivered the world into the arms of the United Nations, but the global architects were unable to create anything more than an international society of bickering social democrats, global guidance counselors and Communist thugs. Thankfully, it had no enforcement powers. But that did not deter the UNís ultimate mission of undermining national sovereignty. While preaching peace through intervention, the UN has created much mischief and genocide in the world which, in turn, has fomented predictable calls for change--including the addition of enforcement powers to the globalist organization. But, the world isnít buying into this trap yet, so enforcement continues to be primarily a US responsibility, and additional crises must be created to alter the worldís reluctance to submit to global authority.

During this post-WWII era (interspersed with periodic regional conflicts), the globalists have concentrated on developing world economic interdependencies to justify adding additional financial and structural elements of control. Their favored vehicle uses the popularity of "free-market" prosperity to rally support for regional common markets which, in turn, demand the creation of regional and international control agencies promoting "free trade." In the process, other goals are achieved like the increase of trade and aid to current tyrannies like Russia and China, and the diminution of self-sufficiency in essential goods within each nation, making them more vulnerable to shortages in future wars. People are also getting used to piecemeal sacrifices of sovereignty in exchange for increased prosperity.

This slow-change, hide-the-real-effects process is meeting with increased resistance within the EU and the US as the control elements of the World Court, IMF, WTO, NAFTA and GATT become more and more obvious and the rigors of free trade cut into traditional socialist subsidies and high wages, especially in Europe. It is for this reason, primarily, that the NWO globalists will resurrect war again as the final catalyst to catapult the world over that final barrier of resistance. That is where we are headed, I believe.

THE USE OF WAR TO INSTIGATE RADICAL CHANGE

The globalists know that they cannot induce the world to give up national sovereignty outright or grant enforcement powers to the UN as long as the world is relatively at peace and the US is the dominant military force in the world. All governments are chronically short of funds due to the demands of social welfare programs. Why should they increase spending to support a UN army when the US will carry the load for them? Thus, it is the destruction of Americaís military, forcing the world to join and support a global military that provides the prime motivation of US global leaders to induce the Russians to strike their own nation. This alone explains the suicidal and unilateral disarmament the US has engaged in for the past 30 years. It explains the rationale for covering up for Russiaís constant cheating on arms control agreements and treaties. It explains why Bill Clinton would direct the US military to absorb a nuclear first strike (PDD-60) and NOT launch on warning. It explains why the US would keep stalling year after year to make sure America is undefended against a nuclear strike and that there are no provisions for civil defense shelters. It isnít that US leaders are stupid. They arenít suicidal. They simply canít get the world to take the final plunge into global control without a war.

HOW DO YOU WIN A WAR AFTER ABSORBING A NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE?

Clearly the NWO globalists do not intend to lose a war to the Russians, which brings up the next question: how do the globalist plan to win a war with Russia when they allow Russia and China to launch a first strike and destroy most of the US and British military machine at the very onset of hostilities? I do not think Europe will be included in the first strike as Russia wants to preserve the economy of Europe by blackmailing it into submission. Certainly Europeís meager NATO forces would be incapable of taking on the Russians alone.

The amswer may lie in the fact that both Republican and Democratic administrations have been actively favoring Chinaís acquisition of US military technology for the past 12 years. I suspect that the globalists have a secret pact with China whereby China has agreed to betray Russia during the next war, in return for promises of military technology transfers. China wins in three ways. It gets military aid from Russia before the war, receives aid from the West before and during the war, and eliminates a major world predator (Russia) in the prosecution of the war. The globalists of the 1930s had a similar secret pact with Russia. Russiaís temporary "non-aggression" pact with Germany set Hitler loose on the world, and after the western front was secure, Russia, with promises of allied aid, turned on Hitler and contributed to his defeat. By establishing a second front at Hitlerís rear, the pressure on the Allies was sufficiently relieved to allow them to take the offensive.

In the coming war, I suspect China will play the same role and may even absorb the balance of Russiaís nuclear weapon strikes. If the West has weapons strong enough to destroy Russiaís underground weapons factories in the Ural Mountains, the war will turn conventional and Russia cannot win a conventional war with Chinaís millions threatening its rear. I wouldnít be surprised if during the course of the war, China will be allowed to retain her conquests in the Far East, much as Stalin was promised control of Eastern Europe after the war. When the war is over, the world will have a new cold war and a new enemy--China. As in WWII, this is precisely what the NWO needs to justify maintaining international enforcement power in the hands of the UN. War will also justify a whole range of control mechanisms over people and business life. We may never see them completely lifted.

A FEW COMMENTS FOR THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND THE THREAT BUT DOUBT CONSPIRACY

There is one major mistake in assumption that almost all people make who object to conspiracy--they assume that everyone or nearly everyone contributing to the conspirator's agenda must know there is a conspiracy and be privy to the whole agenda. This is not true, but conjuring up this assumption allows people to easily dismiss conspiracy with the understanding that too many knowing people would make it impossible to keep the secret. I certainly have never made a case for that all or even a many of the participants know the whole plan or even substantial parts of it. Quite the contrary. All my writings have concentrated on explaining how and why top level conspirators use masses of predictable leftists, yes-men, ambitious lackeys and partially knowing ladder-climbers to do their bidding--specifically so as to limit the number who have "need to know" access. They cement together the whole conglomerate with subtle and not so subtle threats--and occasionally carry them out. Many are bought off with regular payments--like journalists and judges. Most know only parts of the puzzle.

However, almost everyone in high places does know there is "power structure" above them they dare not challenge, they also know it isn't good for their job, advancement or health to "ask too many questions." Read any number of the tales by federal whistleblowers to confirm this general fear. Thus, most participants rationalize it all away as some benevolent control system, or believing that "whoever they are" must control the world in order to have stability. Others, especially in the enforcement ranks, are just too corrupt to care. But the bottom line is: very few know that the Powers That Be (PTB) intend to pull the nuclear trigger via Russia and China. All the little steps leading up to weakening the US and building up Russia and China are covered by liberal notions of "dťtente," "easing tensions," and "peace." These lesser officials who are tasked to defend these lies tend to believe their own propaganda.

However, the ones at the very top, who do know how to use war to create Hegelian responses, are very very evil--something most of the world doesn't really believe in anymore, and that is why many people can't conceive of or believe in this horrible brand of conspiracy. But keep in mind what they did before in building up Hitler, only to set him loose on Europe during WWII. The war created a justification for the UN and facilitated the rise of a new enemy (Russia) in its aftermath. Remember Pearl Harbor--not because of the infamy of Japan, but the infamy of Roosevelt and his leftist crew who induced Japan to attack and hid the information from our own military in Hawaii. It happened before, so why should it be so hard to believe now? We are reaching the culmination of what George Marshall and his cohorts planned by creating a cold war enemy. Russia was allowed to rise and have hegemony over Europe in order to create the next war. The phony demise of "Communism" is merely the final effort to lull the West into complacency before the strike. We are about to see it descend upon the world.

In all of this, I'm certainly not discounting the military-industrial complex argument, but it doesn't explain why people that are already fabulously wealthy and who control the reigns of power are still pushing the world toward greater and greater global control. None of this will give them any more personal power or wealth. How much can any single person use? The military industrial complex argument doesnít explain the rush to suicide and disarmament at an alarming rate. Some participants are blind, but surely some must suspect this is very dangerous game and are going along in order to please some other very powerful people above them. But let there be no doubt--the top echelon expects to survive this--why else have they built significant bunkers at US taxpayer expense. Somebody knows something is coming. Also, war is not as futile a tactic as most conspiracy debunkers assume. At least 2/3 of the world will survive this even without preparations, and virtually all the high level people who know that war is coming have made preparations to survive it.

My friend Jeff Nyquist and many others do not believe in conspiracy--at least on a broad scale. They try to explain things in terms of mistakes, blunders and attempts to cover for those blunders. The basic problem I have with Nyquist's reliance on standard psychological and sociological models is that it breaks down with the more specific information I have about the detailed actions of those involved in the government's undermining of our national interests--in exchange for global and leftist interests. I've never met an honest conspiracy debunker yet who has really read all the literature of the defectors from the CIA and other black agencies. Of course, virtually none of the defectors themselves sees the big picture either--but the evidence is clear that the whistleblowers all knew that the higher ups directly conspired to keep them silent. We have to look at the long historical trend of conformity to leftist ideology in these cover ups to perceive the unified purpose behind these actions. Few witnesses immersed in the details of a whistleblowerís tragic battles with government have the talent to see the correlation and pattern of action that point to a coordinated plan of attack on liberty and national sovereignty. Itís too easy to focus on the specific injustice.

For example, the excuse that the betrayal of US security interests by CIA or State Department officials is a cover-up for past mistakes is a weak conclusion. Certainly, mistakes happen, no matter how much power the PTB have. But covering for blunders alone does not explain why high government officials keep making NEW MISTAKES in the same consistent direction (leftward) and why there are more and more NEW EFFORTS to cover for NEW threats from the Russians and Chinese . Why is it that we never see any official learn from the blunders of the past? Why is it that the betrayals keep accelerating and getting broader? The more diverse the agencies involved and the more people that are brought into the net of betrayal, the less possible it is that they are all acting only to cover for mistakes. There has to be some other explanation that keeps generation after generation of government officials moving toward a single direction.

Cover-ups are what I consider my best evidence for conspiracy--simply because of the interconnectedness between disconnected officials and agencies that happens in a conspiracy. But now Nyquist comes along and, while admitting that cover ups exist, claims that there is no plan behind them--that it is only normal sociological motives of rogue individuals. I don't buy it--mainly because of the many many years this has been going on, and the fact that it has always had a powerful continuum of hostility toward the interests of liberty. If it were people covering for people, the process would clear itself from time to time or even reverse directions. It would be more random. But it isnít random. It shows all too much disturbing evidence of continual forward movement--purposeful movement, in my opinion.

IS THERE ANY HOPE OFCOUNTERING THIS EVIL STRATEGY?

This strategy is wholly dependent upon shielding Americans and Europeans from Russian and Chinese intentions. Keeping people ignorant and naive also allows these same globalist leaders to claim that they didnít know of Russian and Chinese intentions. We must not let them get away with this, lest they claim the right to lead America into the war for global control. If you doubt what I say, check your feelings to see if you at least can sense that the Russians and Chinese are lying about their pretensions of peace. If you trust our government, remember Pearl Harbor. The evidence is now fully proven that Roosevelt induced Japan to attack in much the same way our own government now is helping to induce a Russian attack in the future. Only this time the results will be deadly to many more Americans. Every one of you reading this is at risk, so do not take lightly what I say. If the general reasoning I have presented is compelling, help warn others. Feel free to distribute this analysis. The more people that know of this grand deception, the less success globalist leaders will have in escaping blame.

In any case, the least you can do is prepare to survive the next war. If Iím right on timing we still have a few years to prepare. If J R Nyquistís timing is right, you donít have any time to spare, so do something constructive sooner rather than later. My website has several sources that can help you keep track of the progress of these threats and prepare against them.

"The core of the question about the prime motive remains: why destroy the tremendous prosperity that even these conspirators for global power enjoy? "

The problem that we most fail to see is that there is a different species that is conspiring against us. Satan wants to enslave the human being, what do you think he would do if this human being refused to cooperate? "if you can't enslave him, kill him" that's Satan's motto.

Another thing that surprises me is that the conspiracy theory focus on the NWO, while this NWO is no different than the nation states.

Does anybody in the nation states have any choice but to follow the rulers' religion? where is the community rule? voting for a representative and then letting him choose for us is a satanic idea that we all bought.

Submission is the only religion in the world that encourages self-rule, meaning that the people in charge cannot make any decision except after due consultation with the people who chose them.

And the prophecy in the scriptures says that this religion (the only legitimate one) is going to dominate the whole world, God willing very soon.

[9:33] He is the One who sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, and will make it dominate all religions, in spite of the idol worshipers.

Draken

03-27-2005, 05:29 AM

First of all, I apologize for being totally off-topic. But these things seem to crop up all over the place and they need to be addressed. I know a lot of people on this forum don't want to discuss religious matters, especially when a lot of the time someone is trying to force their conviction onto them.
But I think that an intrinsic part of fighting and understanding the NWO is the understanding in mind and heart religion, faith, spirituality on the one hand, and evil on the other hand.

After all, there is a reason these subjects come up every once in a while when discussing conspiracy.

So, back to the discussion!

Ahmad wrote:

The problem that we most fail to see is that there is a different species that is conspiring against us. Satan wants to enslave the human being, what do you think he would do if this human being refused to cooperate? "if you can't enslave him, kill him" that's Satan's motto.

Another thing that surprises me is that the conspiracy theory focus on the NWO, while this NWO is no different than the nation states.

Does anybody in the nation states have any choice but to follow the rulers' religion? where is the community rule? voting for a representative and then letting him choose for us is a satanic idea that we all bought.

Submission is the only religion in the world that encourages self-rule, meaning that the people in charge cannot make any decision except after due consultation with the people who chose them.

And the prophecy in the scriptures says that this religion (the only legitimate one) is going to dominate the whole world, God willing very soon.

[9:33] He is the One who sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, and will make it dominate all religions, in spite of the idol worshipers.

I basically agree.
I have a few buts though. ;-)

You seem to suggest that the nation states are the same as the NWO. You seem to judge nation states based on the way they look today, as opposed to the way they looked and were organized when they worked very well as a system to organize society. Like I said elsewhere; (a long time ago now, it seems) that we should not fall in the trap of judging religion by today's standards, likewise we should not judge the concept of nation states by today's standards. After all, give me ONE example of a nation state which enjoys true, genuine sovereignity.

In the bigger scope one could of course argue that nation states came into existence as a manifastation of a spiritual flaw, due to the inevitable degeneration of creation, from The Golden Age down to the present Iron Age or Kali Yuga.

I totally agree with you in dismissing the idea of voting for a representative. I've posted several articles and written myself on this topic.

I have to say that your idea of Submission being the only legitimate religion, and it's future domination of the world sounds to me worryingly close to a New World Religion. (I know you don't mean it that way but it sounds like it!;-)) UNLESS, you mean that there is a transcendental unity between different religions and that "dominance" then would be a "dominance" (I would rather use "unity") IN SPIRIT and in ATTITUDE and NOT in a worldly, temporal sense, i.e. NOT a dominance of an exoteric nature.

"The ways to God are as many as the breaths of human beings."

Meaning the different religions are the different manifestations of the Ways to God, as given to Man by God according to the differences in temperament, mentality, geography and spiritual faculty of all peoples of the world. On an esoteric level <a href="http://www.integralscience.org/unity.html">they all say the same</a>; their goal is the same - even though on the surface; on an EXOTERIC level, they seem to say different things. This is because they have all manifested from the same source: God.

To clarify my point let me quote from an interview with <a href="http://www.frithjof-schuon.com/interview.htm">Frithjof Schuon</a>:

Question : You have written more than twenty books on religion and spirituality. Your first book has the title The Transcendent Unity of Religions. May I ask you how one should understand this unity?

Frithjof Schuon: Our starting point is the acknowledgment of the fact that there are diverse religions which exclude each other. This could mean that one religion is right and that all the others are false; it could mean also that all are false. In reality, it means that all are right, not in their dogmatic exclusivism, but in their unanimous inner signification, which coincides with pure metaphysics, or in other terms, with the philosophia perennis.

Ahmad

03-27-2005, 06:13 AM

Peace again,

I am still against the idea of "nation states", it's a flawed idea from the vrey beginning, has it ever been successful?

You bring millions under the command of one person whom they don't even know, these millions have nothing in common to begin with, since color, race, and even langauge are not real ties, the only real bond between people is belief.

I support a village-community type of society, where people know each other, united on a common belief under leadrship they choose. That doesn't mean that we divide the world into disputing factions, i believe that peace is still possible but only when people with "common belief" get together.

At some point in history, someone came up with the idea of drawing lines on a map to divide the people, what was his criteria? maybe natural resources, ethnic background or whatever, but i am sure it was not belief.

Now many communities around the world are trying desperately to gain its freedom, they didn't choose to be ruled by their current leaders.

The one religion i am talking about is exactly that "a one religion" it's not a mixture of all religions and it's not a vague new age stuff, it's a simple idea of one god alone.

The current religions worship God+ an idol. This is a satanic dogma, the Christians worship Jesus or God+ Jesus/saints, the muslims worship God+ Muhammad/Ali/saints, the sufis and Hindus transgress more into equating the creatures with their Creator.

Do you think God is pleased with that? the whole idea of religion is one god, now Satan wants to be a partner with God in kingship, do you think God accepts that?

The domination of this one religion though is not in the sense of "compulsion", everybody is free to have his own faith, however one religion will rapidly spread around the world and gradually all the "fake" religions will fade out, not by force, but by the spirit of freedom, God willing.

[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.

Draken

03-27-2005, 09:21 AM

Ok Ahmad.

Time for a showdown.

I usually agree with your views in general. You're obviously well read and have thought things through and hence argue your views very competently and convincingly.

But you very rarely comment on concepts or ideas of other people, other than in passing or in relation to Submission.

For instance, on the <a href="http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/">INTEGRAL TRADITION</a> site there is plenty of material concerning different forms of societies and their different historical, mythical and spiritual aspects. Have you read anything on that site?
I'm asking because if you have then you would understand why I say the things I say about national states. I don't say that the concept of national states is a good one THE WAY IT LOOKS TODAY. But in fact the reason national states came into being in the first place was due to a degeneration in spirit among the sacred rulers of the day.
Fact is that a traditional society actually WOULD be brought together not by a forceful tyrant but by a spirituality shared among the people of that society. If you look at ancient India for example, the <a href="http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/castes.html">caste system</a> provided a sacred hierarchy that manifested from Above. Nobody actually enforced the doctrine of the castes and forced it on the people; that would've been totally impossible with many millions of people over a vast geographical area. It was a society of a heterogeneous character. And yet, the doctrine of the castes permeated all of India. How was that possible? I think the answer is there was a unity IN SPIRIT. The problem of "wrong people in the wrong places" that we experience has been developing to the point of modern man not even remembering a time when it was not so. This is due to the concept of the <a href="http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/regress.html">regression of the castes</a> that for example Evola talks about. If you've read the above links you would've found a very adequate explanation of the issues we are discussing.
But you don't seem to be interested in those views since I don't notice any sign that you've read them.

I would really be interested in your opinions especially on the material from the <a href="http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/">INTEGRAL TRADITION</a> website. It contains a good collection of articles about a number of issues and it's a good place to start studying the World of Tradition and its different aspects and doctrines.

BTW, I check you USN site every once in a while because I want to understand what you stand for and what you're convictions are. I hope you do the same.

As always,

Truth, Beauty, Love

Ahmad

03-27-2005, 10:22 AM

Peace Draken,

"But you very rarely comment on concepts or ideas of other people, other than in passing or in relation to Submission."

If you were in my position you would understand why. The scripture (Quran) freed me from being stuck in the details, i believe that life is more simple than we want it to be!

For example, the "muslims" have developed a large collection of rules governing every aspect of their lives, the Japanese surround themselves also with rules everywhere in your face. Who wants to control every movement of the human being?

Anyway, sometimes i follow the links, but i can't read all the material though. Concerning the issue of the casts, i think that we should leave God to determine the classes of people according to His plan, any human-imposed effort to categorize people based on anything but belief is deemed to fail.

For example if we designate some people to be religious, we are actually telling the rest to leave religion to this minority!, i mean everybody should be religious, everybody should work, everybody should rule, when the responsibility is returned to the individual, God will take it from there and distributes the specific roles on th e people according to their special talents.

For example Jesus was a teacher, he was also a carpenter, the jewish priests on the other hand were professional religionsist who get paid for teaching!

Everybody must be spiritual, productive, self/family/community governing, warrior, each acording to his ability.

And most of all the rich in Submission help the poor (the slaves who don't have the tools of production) to get their freedom through charity.

But dividing the people into sects, classes, castes is the work of Satan i believe.

So, if you have been to my website, do you believe the message or not?

Draken

03-27-2005, 12:56 PM

Concerning the issue of the casts, i think that we should leave God to determine the classes of people according to His plan, any human-imposed effort to categorize people based on anything but belief is deemed to fail.

Well, this is exactly what I mean. God DID determine the classes of people according to His plan, that plan was/is the Doctrine of the Castes! In our time though even this sacred hierarchy went through a period of decadence and that's why we see most people today - even learned people of India - being unable to comprehend in their hearts the concept of the caste system.

But in general, as always;-), I agree with your observations.

Regarding the message on your website I believe - in general!:-D - what is written there. The "Miracle of 19" I haven't read yet, but in time I will read it. My kneejerk reaction to it (and I know kneejerk reactions are not always accurate!) is that it sounds a little too simple to verify the genuinness of a book by a little mathematics. It sound too much like "The Bible Code" by Drosnin, in which he claims a lot of fraudulent "prophesies" to be encoded in the Bible that he "decodes" via numerology and Kabbalistic practices. He claims that through the manipulation of "mathematical codes" he can "prove" his thesis to be right.
Now, I don't say that's what your "Miracle of 19" is, I just say that's what it sounds like.

Like I said before, I think it would be a shame to discard other knowledge as being "Satanic", like so much Sufi wisdom.(I remember a long time ago when this forum was new, we had a conversation where you said you met a Sufi that made you question your every conviction and belief. Isn't that a GOOD thing, questioning yourself?)

In general, you come across to me as a person who interprets scriptures too literally. Not always, but often. This makes you miss certain possibilities hidden within the scriptures of an esoteric, mystic, symbolic nature.

I tend to look for deeper meanings in the scriptures, AS WELL AS seeing the simple truth, like you say.

Let me finish by quoting a <a href="http://www.frithjof-schuon.com/interview.htm">Q&A with Frithjof Schuon</a>. Let me also point out that I don't find anything I've said elsewhere about spiritual/religious issues or people I've quoted, to be incompatible or contrary to what you've been saying concerning your faith and opinions in spiritual/religious issues.

BTW, I appreciate and understand the fact that you can't read everything. Neither can I. But certain things are more important than others. Most of the time I feel we are saying the same thing and actually agreeing with eachother, and then you dismiss things I say without having read the source of MY conviction, or interpreting an issue or detail literally, when I interpret it symbolically.

Question : You have written more than twenty books on religion and spirituality. Your first book has the title The Transcendent Unity of Religions. May I ask you how one should understand this unity?

Frithjof Schuon: Our starting point is the acknowledgment of the fact that there are diverse religions which exclude each other. This could mean that one religion is right and that all the others are false; it could mean also that all are false. In reality, it means that all are right, not in their dogmatic exclusivism, but in their unanimous inner signification, which coincides with pure metaphysics, or in other terms, with the philosophia perennis.

Q. : How can we know that this metaphysical meaning is the truth?

F.S.: The metaphysical perspective is based on intellectual intuition, which by its very nature is infallible because it is a vision by the pure intellect, whereas profane philosophy operates only with reason, hence with logical assumptions and conclusions.

Q. : This being so, what is the basis of religion?

F.S.: The religious, dogmatic or theological perspective is based on revelation; its main purpose is, not to explain the nature of things or the universal principles, but to save man from sin and damnation, and also, to establish a realistic social equilibrium.

Q. : If we have religion, which saves us, why do we also need metaphysics?

F.S.: It is because metaphysics satisfies the needs of intellectually gifted men. Metaphysical truth concerns not only our thinking, but it penetrates also our whole being; therefore it is far above philosophy in the ordinary sense of the word.

Q. : You mentioned before intellectual intuition. Doesn't every man possess this faculty?

F.S.: Yes and no. In principle, every man is capable of intellection, for the simple reason that man is man; but in fact, intellectual intuition -- the "eye of the heart" -- is hidden under a sheet of ice, so to speak, because of the degeneration of the human species. So we may say that pure intellection is a gift and not a generally human faculty.

Q. : Is it possible to develop this higher intuition?

F.S.: There is no need to develop it. Man can be saved by faith alone. But it is evident that a very pious or contemplative person has more intuition than a worldly person.

IV. Message

Q. : What would be your message for the average man?

F.S.: Prayer. To be a human being means to be connected with God. Life has no meaning without this. Prayer and beauty, of course; for we live among forms and not in a cloud. Beauty of soul first, and then beauty of symbols around us.

Q. : You have spoken of metaphysics. May I ask you what the main content of this perennial wisdom is?

F.S.: Metaphysics means essentially: discernment between the Real and the apparent, or the illusory; in Vedantic terms: Atma and Maya ; the Divine and the cosmic. Metaphysics is concerned also with the roots of Maya in Atma,-- this is the Divine Personification, the creating and revealing God -- and then with the projection of Atma into Maya -- this means everything that is positive or good in the world. And this is essential: metaphysical knowledge requires intellectual, psychic and moral assimilation; discernment requires concentration, contemplation and union. Therefore metaphysical theory is not a philosophy in the modern sense of the word; it is essentially sacred. The sense of the sacred is an indispensable qualification for metaphysical realization, as it is for every spiritual way. For the Red Indian, as also for the Hindu, everything in nature is sacred; this, modern man has to learn, because it is a question of ecology in the broadest' sense of the word. What is needed first, is prayer; and then: back to Nature! One could object that it is too late; now, each person is responsible for what he or she does -- not for what others do -- because each one stands before God and can do what is requested for his immortal soul. The first step back to Nature is dignity; dignity of forms and of behavior; this creates the climate in which prayers feel at home, because dignity partakes of the immutable Truth.

Draken

03-28-2005, 07:09 AM

In regards to Freedman's warning this link is in connection to WW1 and WW2.

Charles Lindbergh Sr. (1860-1924)
Congressman from Minnesota (1907-1917) who led the fight against enactment of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. He ran for governor of Minnesota and lost. He was vehemently opposed by The New York Times and other papers.

Federal agents burned his books, including " Why Is Your Country At War?" and the papers and contents of his home office in Little Falls, Minnesota.

...

Lindbergh's <a href="http://www.truthofthematter.org/pdf/Your_Country_At_War.pdf">book</a> said -- " WW-1 was over in 1917 but European Jewry wanted Germany crushed , so Wilson did their bidding and put the USA into the war "

Woodrow Wilson ordered government agents to seize and destroy the printing plates for his book.

truebeliever

03-28-2005, 07:21 AM

Ahmad wrote:

I support a village-community type of society, where people know each other, united on a common belief under leadrship they choose. That doesn't mean that we divide the world into disputing factions, i believe that peace is still possible but only when people with "common belief" get together.

[/font][/color][/b]

I agree Ahmed. And so does Alex Jones.

The power lies at the local level. Just ignore the Federal government as we here in Oz should ignore ours and go with State and local government. This is where the real power lies.

Local people making local decisions amongst people they know.

Pretty simple really.

Hey Ahmed...i posted this at EXACTLY 9:19pm.

Ozziecynic

04-08-2005, 08:25 PM

:-? TB: To operate successfully on the local level you would need to cut ties with the whole mainstream Financial and economic system.Be realistic this just isnt going to happen!You still have to buy and sell work in the mainstream economy if you want to exist!.The government still wants its fair share of taxes.
How are you going to live in commune unless you completely cut ties with reality and live , like the ferals in Northern NSW e.g.The hippies already tried this in the 1960s it failed a few still nominally claim the hippie lifestyle in in places like Nimbin nsw or Tasmania many of them are also heavily dependent on social security.How does that fit with your Libertarian views of financial self sufficency.

Even the ones that do work are involved in Black Markets like the drug trade.The Drug trade in that area of Au is still well out of control!.The remainder that do work and trade legimately within the mainstream economic system are hardly immune from its values any more than the rest of society. Afterall hippies gave us many of our post modern values subjectivism and pseudo marxism in the first place many of these values have been completely intergrated into mainstream society and culture hence and present state of moral decadence. :-?

Your utopia looks like something of the 1960s counter culture they werent very christian though either!.

nohope187

04-08-2005, 08:44 PM

Well, if society(anywhere in this fucked up world) is going to change for the better, it has to start somewhere, and what better place to start than in one's own local community? I think that's the point True was tryin' to make. :-P

Ozziecynic

04-08-2005, 09:04 PM

:roll: Nohope:
However my my point still remains you are not independent or immune from reality except maybe in cc or your head. Ho hum :roll: :roll:

nohope187

04-08-2005, 09:12 PM

Well, theoretically it's supposed to start in the local community(looks good on paper), but you're right. The likelyhood of anything positive happening has two chances, slim and none leaning towards none, given the bleak current circumstances. That last post of mine on this thread was a weak attempt at being optimistic anyways. :-P

truebeliever

04-08-2005, 09:34 PM

Well you're right OC. Thats why I'm still here. Coz if i could be REALLY, TOTALLY, SELF SUFFICIENT you would'nt see me for dust.

I beleive also that they would attempt to destroy any successful community due to a conscious decision but also through the unconscious force of shadow projection whereby any successful community which isolated itself would immediately come under suspicion of a 'cult', or 'child abusers' etc...

Just the fact that you must still pay land tax say's it all. You never own anything.

However, it is possible to become incredibly self sufficient. All that matters is sufficient initial funding to buy the nescessary solar and wind power generators plus of course the land.

Also, at exactly what level do you want to subsist? Still want the net...it can be done.

Villagers in Asia have been living like this for thousands of years. It's simply a matter of dedication. I personally relish the oppurtunity.

I am lucky also in that i have MANY contacts in the building trade and willing people from various walks of life. All with something to bring.

The key is a critical mass so that a self sufficient chain reaction can begin and the community becomes internally viable.

Remember, society is just one big commune.

You would be amazed at the low cost, low technology equipment available that makes life easier.

The one chance i see in this lifestyle working is because people in general are ready for it. They've had enough of the grind. They've got the Plasma T.V and they're still miserable.

It can be alot of fun. People getting together and forming strong familial bonds. NO HIPPIES ALLOWED!

Ozziecynic

04-08-2005, 10:20 PM

8-) First of all TB thanks for the good natured reply TB and glad we can leave our personal pride weaknesses behind us and move on all is forgiven!.I must add though iam not really on anyones side except truth and my own and Gods so future sins and weaknesses are possible but i will attempt to minimise them!.Now on with the discussion.

:-? am lucky also in that i have MANY contacts in the building trade and willing people from various walks of life. All with something to bring.

Really thats interesting to have such radical building trade mates i have worked as a landscaping apprentice for time here in NSW and all the guys would talk about is football, sex and cars,in fact of the reasons i wasnt popular was because i showed no interest in such things,perhaps they thought i was gay, so yeh does surprise me youve found such radical or deep thinking tradies in my experience they havent seemed to exist!.

Remember, society is just one big commune.

Although i have to disagree here.I dont believe we live in society in any shape on an abstract national level and although there are local communities one only has status as a self employed producer not as an employee.And further we dont all socially fit into to our so called local communities do we especially, radical anti the system views like ours, atleast not where i live i keep my views close to my chest most of the time its like the walls have ears!.

Further i understand market liberals and libertarians believed in living in a centralised corporatised economic system not decentralised societies or community since they believe that all relationships only exist with the framework of the voluntary exchange of goods and services (hayek)and since these are monopolised increasingly by big business they set the ground rules.
:-? :-?

Draken

04-09-2005, 10:29 AM

I think self-sufficiency can be achieved: it's got to do with how comfortable you want your life to be. How much comfort are you willing to sacrifice to be self-sufficient?

OC wrote:
However my my point still remains you are not independent or immune from reality except maybe in cc or your head.

What do you mean by "reality"?

As far as I'm concerned, what is generally accepted as reality seems to me more and more like an illusion.

If you mean the reality of Statist coercion and threats to individual freedom like taxes and "welfare systems" and "democratic human rights" it really all depends on how much comfort you've let yourself be bribed with.

To me that's the catch. People have been bought off by the Elite with a comfortable life, clothes, luxuries of all kind we take for granted, events of all kinds, entertainment etc.

Most people can't imagine a life without TV. I've decided to give up TV half-a-year ago and I don't intend to EVER go back. This is an illustration on a miniscule scale of what it would take to become independent and self-sufficient. The State claims that you wouldn't be able to live your life if the State didn't provide you with for example infrastructure. Really? Does my life REALLY depend on infrastructure? Would I REALLY stop breathing if I didn't have a bus to ride, or an asphalted road to walk on?

We have become SOFT; we are no longer using or bodies to the full. WE have become COMFORTABLE. If we are willing to give up our comfort the State has nothing left to offer. If we give up the material things the State produces for our leasure and distraction we at present can't live without, we are suddenly free from manipulation and coercion. How could the State force an individual to do anything if that individual didn't want anything the State had to offer in return?

In its most desperate attempt at fooling us we need the State, it claims that we are threatened by "global terrorism" and that the State can protect us from that "global terrorism".

If I had ANY choice in the matter I'd say "don't protect me from "global terrorism" you, the State, created as an excuse to claim you are necessary."

I agree with both TB and Ahmad that we need to go back to smaller communities, like villages, where everyone know eachother and protect and help eachother.

Like I said to TB before though, the State would do everything in its power to destroy such a community because it would threaten the State's very excuse for existing.

truebeliever

04-09-2005, 10:44 AM

My sister owns 10 acres of prime realestate out of a town.

Even if she provides perfectly good water and sewerage facilities (easily done), she cannot subdivide that land. Only the local council can provide water and sewerage and that will take 10-15 years.

It's her land...she however, does not own it by any definition. She cannot do what she wants on that land. No more easily identifiable reason for being pissed off exists for me at this moment.

The State, on a whim, a jealous competitor in high position can make life hell for you.

They can peer into your backyard with satellite photo's to make sure you hav'nt built an illegal 'terrorist' pergola. They are beautiful A4 sized high definition photo's of your backyard brought up on a computer and printed out in a few minutes.

I will have my land, but clear in my mind is that people will have to fight.

I dont want to sound melodramatic, but people really have to let the State know...if they want to get busy, sticking their pig snouts in peoples business, they should know ordinary people will fight back. By whatever means appropriate. People need to draw a line in the sand and say NO FURTHER.

Where is their to run? We will all have to fight...we can still have a tree filled block of land though...with permaculture. Yum, yum.

Ozziecynic

04-09-2005, 11:46 AM

:-? If you mean the reality of Statist coercion and threats to individual freedom like taxes and "welfare systems" and "democratic human rights" it really all depends on how much comfort you've let yourself be bribed with.

Dragon: This isnt Sweden you know we dont have a Democratic socialist type government or excessive bureaucracy here in Australia. Infact i have made it clear before it is opposite. Foreign Corps and their Market liberal supporters pushing their economic rationalist mantra have control over au at the present time and our future looks like even more privatistaion of essential serivices.So I am afraid socialism is nowhere on the horizon here.I forgot your one of the market liberals arent you!.

Most people can't imagine a life without TV. I've decided to give up TV half-a-year ago and I don't intend to EVER go back. This is an illustration on a miniscule scale of what it would take to become independent and self-sufficient. The State claims that you wouldn't be able to live your life if the State didn't provide you with for example infrastructure. Really? Does my life REALLY depend on infrastructure? Would I REALLY stop breathing if I didn't have a bus to ride, or an asphalted road to walk on?

Yes i agree with all this, but Liberal capitalism brings us all this. The state just takes care of criminal law enforcement and taxes. It looks like these two responibilites will be it s only functions in Australia very soon.

I agree with both TB and Ahmad that we need to go back to smaller communities, like villages, where everyone know eachother and protect and help eachother.

Dragon: Did you see this in my last post to TB:Further i understand market liberals and libertarians believed in living in a centralised corporatised economic system not decentralised societies or community since they believe that all relationships only exist with the framework of the voluntary exchange of goods and services (hayek)and since these are monopolised increasingly by big business they set the ground rules.

The fact is Market Liberals and the Conglomerate capitalism they encourge would be the first to want to stifle such an idea! The state maybe used as stormtroopers if they are not also a Private militia by then, but apart from that it seems Mega liberal capitalism has a problem with the concept more than the state atleast in Australias case.

Ps By the way I know Draken means Dragon in Scandinavian so Question:Because you believe yourself to be a reasonably religious man like many others here why do you call yourself Dragon.My understanding was the dragon was a sign of satan to be honest!.
:-?

Ozziecynic

04-09-2005, 11:56 AM

TB: The State, on a whim, a jealous competitor in high position can make life hell for you.

And like mega Private enterprise wont!.Maybe you should see that Bond movie "Tomorrow Never Dies" it shows you just how powerfull one tycoon can become!

What about this in my last post to you on the concept it still remains unanswered!.

Further i understand market liberals and libertarians believed in living in a centralised corporatised economic system not decentralised societies or community since they believe that all relationships only exist with the framework of the voluntary exchange of goods and services (hayek)and since these are monopolised increasingly by big business they set the ground rules. :-?

Draken

04-09-2005, 05:43 PM

Yeah, "dragon" is a symbol of Satan - according to the Catholic Church.:lol:

In some other parts of the world the dragon is quite a positive symbol...

I'm definately a "religious" person - there are other religions than the one you, OC, adhere to though.:-D

truebeliever

04-09-2005, 09:30 PM

Yo OC.

My stepfather has been a trady/builder for 40 years. Most of his friends are retired but still active.

We need to really define what the system is.

The system has nothing to do with free markets and 'liberal', low government interference policies.

It is socialism by any definition whereby members of the same class (managerial) whether in the private or public sector, utilise the power of the State to further their own agenda's.

What is currently unfolding around the world has absoloutly NOTHING to do with free market liberalism. It is imperial domination mixed in with socialist/fuedal powers systems of control.

They can talk the talk all they like. When they walk...it's to the left...as John Raulston Saul points out----> the so-called Capitalists of today are socialists in drag who wont get out of bed in the morning without a government subsidy, cartel agreement or huge tariff. They would die of shock should they compete...

Look at our own Ralph Sarich and the 'Orbital Engine'. A true capitalist by ANY defintition... the cartel's involving the car and oil industry canned him with the full co-operation of the Federal and State Australian governments who refused to help in ANY way though they regularly waste tax payers cash on their friends (Howard and his mate in the ethanol industry).

In the end, without fancy economic analysis...it's simply a system of class warfare whereby a grouping of individuals with the same philosophic and class consciousness, seek to use all the tools at their disposal to maintain power and privelidge.

It is rightly called fuedalism. The return of Kings and robber barrons ruling a vast peasant class.

However...just which God will be ordaining the new Kings of today?

With the rise of Secular Humanism, the U.N, on what ultimate value will this new King rule?

Draken

04-10-2005, 04:58 AM

Just a comment: feudalism wasn't always an excuse for kings and robber barons to oppress the peasants. There was a time feudalism wasn't the clandestine counterfeit it is today.
There was a time when just and wise kings ruled and everyone knew and accepted their place in the hierarchy. There was a reason for everyone to be in that particular place and that reason wasn't made up by neither kings nor peasants.

Feudalism can be a good system, provided the right people are in the right places, where everyone knows his worth and everyone's contribution is needed and appreciated.

Benevolent fascism eh? Not a fukcin chance in hell, except on a small scale in small settings where the order is accepted by all those present.

On the large scale? DISASTER!

This is Rothschild wish list! People all knowing there place and leaving all that importent stuff to the importent people...like Plato's 'Philosopher Kings'.

Oh Drak! What happened? Torture? Money?... :-D

Nope, no way.

FREEDOM...with every little human taught their rights and responsabilities from the time they can talk. That they must partake their time and effort into the maintainence of the Republic.

Only then.

We must get away from letting people decide things for us or once Mr Nice King is killed by a lone nut we'll end up with Mr Nasty King...

P.S...my computer spontaneously 'submitted' my just started post and i noticed that my psuedonum has appeared online twice?

Da Joooze I tells ya!

One last thing...besides all that...i want the option to get out completley. I want society to ackowledge that there are some people who are happy to opt out completely and have nothing to do with any SYSTEM.

I want this option....then quite frankly, the rest of the human race can sink in it's own filth or goodness as they see fit.